Explain this whole "Big Bang" thing to me

This is a discussion on Explain this whole "Big Bang" thing to me within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; If you think about it...... what do you think created the primordial ooze that well..... banged. There are a terribly ...

>>...and someone asked what came before the big bang.
One theory (as seen on Nova, "Runaway Universe") is that the Universe will someday stop expanding and start contracting and implode - perhaps starting the process all over again.

gg

yes, the theory of time simply "ending" - scarry thought.

If you think about it...... what do you think created the primordial ooze that well..... banged. There are a terribly large amount of signs pointing towards the existence of a god.
Vanilla Ice's theory as seen on the surreal life is totally moronic. He says there is a god BUT we come from another more advanced planet. If I could meet I would ask him 1 thing. Why the hell we would get so dumb all of a sudden. His theory is just full of holes as is the theory of evolution.

cerin, did you really quote vanilla ice in this discussion? are you freagin serious?

Zach, your argument is something I used when I was in grade school...it maybe valid, but brings nothing to the discussion - we are all aware of the faults and the question of "if this made that, what made this? and so on into infinity." - take a look at the op and try to answer that, instead of repeating the same thing over and over again.

I prefer the pressure theory. Basically, when you accurately expand the equations for gravitation, pressure becomes a source of gravity. In the everyday world, it's insignificant. In the early days of the universe with very little entropy, everything was very tightly bunched together such that the pressure term of the gravitation equations was much more significant than the 'regular' terms from gravitation. The thing is, the pressure term of gravitation induces a repulsive force, where normal gravity (following newton's laws for macroscopic objects) is an attractive force (it induces a pull).

So, basically, the theory suggests that gravity caused the big bang. Because it is gravity, and not some other mysterious unknown entity (gravity obeys the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light) the big bang acts as a single well defined event with respect to absolute space time (as opposed to basing it off of relative time or whatever).

Zach, your argument is something I used when I was in grade school...it maybe valid, but brings nothing to the discussion - we are all aware of the faults and the question of "if this made that, what made this? and so on into infinity." - take a look at the op and try to answer that, instead of repeating the same thing over and over again.

I would like to humbly point out my post above directly relates to the OP's question.

The actual implication here is that I'm awesome and everyone else's response sucked. Except for Zach, because he goes to MIT, and that's where I get a lot of my info, and MIT is cool. Otherwise Zach would suck too.

edit:
and about the whole pointless religion argument: the answer is 8. I'm catholic.

Anyway... Back to the original point. Unless I'm mistaken, the last I heard was that the oscillating universe idea is false because the universe has been measured to be accelerating apart, hence, it should never reach a point at which it will collapse in on itself.

*edit*

and about the whole pointless religion argument: the answer is 8. I'm catholic.

im just p|ssed that nobody is going to read my post above because you two girls wont' stop b|tching
edit:
and axon, i ranked you up, even though you are a jackass for ranking me down. next time you say im not on topic, make sure i haven't already given an intelligent reply.

I prefer the pressure theory. Basically, when you accurately expand the equations for gravitation, pressure becomes a source of gravity. In the everyday world, it's insignificant. In the early days of the universe with very little entropy, everything was very tightly bunched together such that the pressure term of the gravitation equations was much more significant than the 'regular' terms from gravitation. The thing is, the pressure term of gravitation induces a repulsive force, where normal gravity (following newton's laws for macroscopic objects) is an attractive force (it induces a pull).

So, basically, the theory suggests that gravity caused the big bang. Because it is gravity, and not some other mysterious unknown entity (gravity obeys the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light) the big bang acts as a single well defined event with respect to absolute space time (as opposed to basing it off of relative time or whatever).

The one complication I see is the unification of the forces "early" on after the big bang. For there to be repulsion, there must be a repulsive force but gravity isn't (unless of course, you found something with negative mass).

It was my understanding, when I read my source, which I don't have handy, that to get the total force of gravity, you basically take a bunch of different terms to get an accurate answer...sort of like expanding a taylor series or something like that. But, the pressure term from gravity is sort of like the term from the 1000th derivative which is usually small, except for in certain instances (I realize the taylor series isn't the best example).

So, unless I read my source wrong, yes, pressure does contribute to gravity, and yes, it creates a repulsive gravity. Of course, every classical text book defines gravity as being attractive, but I was reading a book about string theory, which isn't a classical text book.

Of course, every argument is flaky in the sense that we can't really prove much of anything. I'm regurgitating some fancy ideas I would have never thought of.

A better argument against my response is that I didn't even touch upon the problem of *where* the matter came from, only how it expanded

The pressure theory also contributes to this idea of an expanding universe (a universe that may be expanding at an increasing rate, as opposed to expanding only to someday collapse...it again deals with balancing the attractive component of gravity with the repulsive component of gravity, where the outskirts of the universe becomes so distant from ordinary mass that the pressure term of gravity becomes dominant and repels it away).

>> what about the theory that mankind in the distant future creates the universe that we are in today
That either doesn't work or supports one of the other theories, because it requires some starting point to initiate the 'universe loop'.

>> what about the theory that mankind in the distant future creates the universe that we are in today
That either doesn't work or supports one of the other theories, because it requires some starting point to initiate the 'universe loop'.

possibly not. Does anything have to have an independent cause when there is circular causation. Something in effect causes itself to come into being, which is not theoretically impossible.